I have a pretty good idea: can you guess what it is?
What can make businesses and consumers take climate change seriously?
The Biden Administration has identified addressing climate change – specifically, global warming – as one of its top priorities. Indeed, they are incorporating climate change into both their foreign and economic policies.
Accepting global warming and its impacts as an issue still leaves the question of how to deal with it. Of course, a simple answer is for businesses and consumers to change behaviors and purchases in order to reduce the rise in global temperatures.
But again, we’re left with the question of how – what would motivate businesses and consumers to do this?
One answer is concern for the planet. We can voluntarily alter our behavior and change the products and services we use in order to reduce environmental damage. Many people willingly pay more to drive a hybrid or all-electric vehicle so as to curtail carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
I accept global warming. I just say that the majority is natural causation. So, why would I do anything? The article from WRAL then gets into the “top down approach”, otherwise known as “Government telling you what to do, taking your money, limiting your freedom, choice, and liberty.” Then we get
These concerns have led to an alternative approach to curtailing global warming – the “bottom-up†approach. This approach begins with the premise that people don’t purposely engage in behavior that harms the environment.
Instead, their environmental harm is an unfortunate by-product of behavior that benefits them. For example, a person may charge their tech products with electricity that is generated by high CO2-emitting coal. This is not because they hate the environment. Instead, they are either unaware their electricity is generated from coal, or they have no alternative. (snip)
For decades, many economists have proposed a simple solution to this situation. Levy a fee on the pollution-creating behavior (using electricity generated from coal, driving a gasoline-powered vehicle, plus many others), with the fee approaching the environmental damage done by the behavior.
Um, that sure seems like a top down approach, since it would be Government implementing these carbon tax schemes (at least call them what they are, WRAL)
There is a possible solution. It’s called a refundable pollution fee. The fee will still be applied and collected. But it will also be refunded to those paying it, but on some basis other than the amount paid. One suggestion is to refund an equal amount to everyone paying the fee.
This is just a rewriting of the carbon dividend scheme, trying to make it palatable. The thing is, this is not voluntary in the least, and you won’t be getting all the money back. And the intent is to make people thank government for giving them some of the money back that was forcibly taken to cover the artificial increase in the cost of living.
You want to convince me? Practice what you preach. Start with WRAL giving up their use of fossil fueled vehicles, including helicopters, to gather the news. Stop using fossil fueled vehicles to deliver newspapers. Stop making newspapers, which kill trees. Run the WRAL headquarters only with renewables. At the end of the day, Warmists want to force Other People to take the climate crisis scam seriously via Government dictates.
Teach exactly what do you think is causing that “natural causation” ? Please tell us don’t keep it a secret
Right nowcthe cost of carbon offsets is only about 150$ per American per year
The cost of the USA military per American is about 1800$ per year
I think we could go carbon neutral pretty easily
Then go carbon neutral, who’s stopping you? As for anyone else it’s not your place to take their money. We call that stealing.
BTW, how much did you pay in carbon credits last year? How about the year before? I’d bet zero. So you are a liar too. And a hypocrite. But then aren’t all communists?
John-the null hypothesis is that it is natural causation, unless shown otherwise
Jil,
The null hypothesis is true if the changes seen between is two conditions the result of chance.
What are the two conditions? First, is there warming compared to baseline? Even Jil finally agrees to that.
Since it’s warming why would you favor “natural” (unexplained) over CO2-caused (mechanistic)?
Because the “simple physicsâ€, as we’re told, has never been shown-CO2 back radiation forcing-making an object warmer from its own emissions. Trillions spent, but they can’t demonstrate a simple experiment in a lab. I wonder why?
Simple physics has been around for a long, long time, and simple physics predicts the equilibrium surface temperature for Earth of -18C. Clearly it’s warmer than that.
Take a ball, place it in a glass cube (opaque to IR, transparent to visible) let it sit in the Sun a couple of hours. Read the surface temp of the ball. Measure the air temperature. Repeat without the glass cube. Where did that extra heat come from??????????
And poor Rimjob wishes to be taken seriously.
He’s neither smart nor clever.
Bwaha! Lolgf
Say, What Will It Take To Make People And Businesses Comply To Stop Climate Apocalypse?
A true belief that a warming planet is somehow a doomsday scenario. It’s pretty hard to frighten people when almost no one dies of heat stroke in countries where they have A/C.
So to the democrats. OUTLAW HEATING AND AIRCONDITIONING and then you will successfully force the civilized west to address your cult of AGW secretly funded by the CCP and BILLIONAIRES who want to control the world’s wealth.
Remember it only took the Gamestop scenario to show how aggressive Billionaires are in their own playground as they daily destroy little guys net wealth by being able to trade using computer programs that beat the little guy to the table with trades driving up or driving down the prices of stocks and beating the snot out of the little guy.
It is why your broker says just invest and stay long term. Why?
So the billionaires can use your money floating in cyberspace to make billions every day.
Until you can make it painful for US, no one takes you seriously. So make it painful and then be prepared for worldwide TRUE REVOLUTION. Your choice.
Teach claims adding the actual cost of the negative externalities is a top-down approach, while it’s actually a market approach where consumers make the choice whether to purchase the polluting energy.
Over the next decades, local, state and the federal governments will pay billions in adaptation, e.g., working to build flood defenses, plan for heatwaves and higher temperatures, install water-permeable pavements to better deal with floods and storm water and improve water storage and use, how to protect coastlines and deal with sea-level encroachment, how to best manage land and forests, how to deal with and plan for reduced water availability, how to develop resilient crop varieties and how to protect energy and public infrastructure.
Nice copy & paste there, Rimjob.
Hate to bust your bubble but that’s exactly what they’re supposed to do and have been doing since the beginning of the Republic. It’s called public works.
Ever read any history?
You’re not very smart.
Lolgf
Sounds like an awesome JOBS program Elwood. Congrats.
Why would they need to do that, J? By the way, heatwaves were much worse in the 1930s..
How serious can they be if they are STILL making exceptions for China & India on this “worldwide problem” that we “must come together” to solve….sixgteen years AFTER we had twelve years to live.
Just call it what it is, a money grab from the west sugar coated in “environmental activism” to make DC feel good about themselves at the expense of US taxpayers. Quid, Kerry, Gore and the gang have no intention of lowering their “carbon footprint”. They want to lower YOUR “carbon footprint”.
“The beatings will stop once you comply.”
Usually works for dictators.
#BelieveTheLie
#TrustUs
Bwaha! Lolgf
“Simple physics have been around a long time..†So have simple experiments, J. A nice word salad, though, to cover up the fact that still no simple experiment has been done. And it doesn’t negate the fact that there are other hypotheses on warming-namely, clouds. There are several papers on that. And it doesn’t explain the Roman nor MWP, nor other times in earth’s history when CO2 was much higher than now with lower temps.The radiative properties of CO2 are still only calculated, not measured. But let me get this straight-increasing the level of CO2 increases temperatures, but it can’t be demonstrated in a lab experiment, that temperatures can be increased by increasing the level of CO2? Got it